alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jeffrey Goodson, Appellant.

—Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (William McCooe, J., at separate trials and sentence, and at *Mapp*hearing on the gun possession indictment; Berkman, J., on *Mapp*motion on the gun possession indictment; and Peter McQuillan, J., at initial and supplemental *Huntley*hearings on the robbery indictment), both rendered on June 23, 1983 (indictments Nos. 4321/82 and 4322/ 82), unanimously affirmed. Appellant’s motion for reargument of this court’s order entered on May 30, 1985, which denied leave to file a *pro se*supplemental brief, is denied. No opinion. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Asch, Kassal, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0380

IN THE MATTER OF:

J.K.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including September 15, 2021, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 9 2021

08/09/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0380
# C_2020390EN.01003001.xml

| 16.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 390/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 390/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2020 — Pshonka v Council

(Case T-292/19) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources - Maintenance of the applicant’s name on the list - Council’s obligation to verify that the decision of an authority of a third State was taken in accordance with the rights of the defence and the right to effective judicial protection)

(2020/C 390/42)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Artem Viktorovych Pshonka (Kramatorsk, Ukraine) (represented by M. Mleziva, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by R. Pekař and V. Piessevaux, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 7) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2019 L 64, p. 1), in so far as those acts maintain the applicant’s name on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/354 of 4 March 2019 amending Decision 2014/119/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/352 of 4 March 2019 implementing Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in so far as the name of Mr Artem Viktorovych Pshonka was maintained on the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

| 2. | Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
#### CHARLES AMUSEMENT CO., Respondent, v. ECKENSPERGER, Sheriff, et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

October 16, 1907.)

Action by the Charles Amusement Company against Thomas Eckensperger, as sheriff, etc., and others.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Held that, it appearing by statements of counsel made in open court that the plaintiff has ceased to carry on the business which the sheriff was restrained from interfering with, and that the parties have entered upon the trial of the issues, and that the action may be determined upon the merits before the commencement of the next season, the questions of law involved should not be determined upon this motion, but on an appeal from the judgment.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Hong Liang Lu,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of UTStarcom, Inc.on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934 and that the information contained in such Form 10-Q fairly presents inall material respects the financial condition and results of operations ofUTStarcom, Inc.

 
|   |          |
|--------|---------------|
| By:    |          | /s/ Hong Liang Lu |
|   | Name:

Title: |   | Hong  Liang Lu

Chief  Executive Officer |
|        |               |  |  |  |  |
# C_2021053EN.01003701.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Alkemie Group v EUIPO — Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE)

(Case T-859/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ALKEMIE - Earlier EU word mark Alkmene - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 53/49)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mann & Schröder GmbH (Siegelsbach, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2230/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Mann & Schröder and Alkemie Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2230/2018-2) to the extent that it dismissed Alkemie Group sp. z o.o’s action in respect of ‘dietary aids’ in Class 5; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2230/2018-2) to the extent that it dismissed Alkemie Group sp. z o.o’s action in respect of ‘dietary aids’ in Class 5;

| 2. | Dismisses the action for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action for the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ABATEMENT ORDER

Appellate case name: Ronald Wayne Earls v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00312-CR

Trial court case number: 1466294

Trial court: 232nd District Court of Harris County

The record was due on July 20, 2017. A notice of late record was sent to the court 

reporter, Arlene F. Webb, on July 28, 2017. Ms. Webb did not respond and did not file 

the reporter’s record. On September 27, 2017, this Court issued an order for Ms. Webb to 

file the reporter’s record on or before October 9, 2017. No response or motion for 

extension was filed and no reporter’s record was filed.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand to the trial court for a 

hearing to be held within 30 days of the date of this order, to determine if the

reporter’s record of the trial is lost or destroyed and appellant is entitled to a new

trial pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(f). See TEX. R. APP. P. 

34.6(f); 35.3(c) (allowing appellate courts to enter any order necessary to ensure timely 

filing of record).

All counsel and appellant shall be present in person at the abatement hearing.

The court coordinator of the trial court shall set a date for said hearing and notify

the parties, including appellant. If appellant is now incarcerated, he may appear by

closed video teleconference.1

At the hearing, if the trial court determines the record is not lost or destroyed,

it should set a date certain, in no event more than 30 days from the date of this order,

for the record to be filed in this Court. If the record is lost or destroyed, findings of

fact and conclusions of law are to be filed to that effect with this Court within 30 days

of the date of this order.

The trial court shall have a court reporter, or court recorder, record the hearing

and file the reporter’s record with the Court no later than 30 days from the date of

this order. Additionally, the trial court’s findings and recommendations and any
orders issued pursuant to this hearing shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s

record and filed in this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this order. If the

hearing is conducted by video teleconference, a certified electronic copy of the hearing

shall be filed in this Court no later than 30 days from the date of this order.

1

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: October 17, 2017

 

1 Any such teleconference must use a closed-circuit video teleconferencing system that provides for

a simultaneous compressed full motion video and interactive communication of image and sound between the

trial court, appellant, and any attorneys representing the State or appellant. On request, appellant and his counsel

shall be able to communicate privately without being recorded or heard by the trial court or the attorney

representing the State.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                          17,996
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   21,665
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     32,121
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                72,570
<PP&E>                          27,219
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  99,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           43,507
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        13
<OTHER-SE>                      28,051
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    99,789
<SALES>                         27,211
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                27,211
<CGS>                           20,171
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   20,171
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                4,165
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              605
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 2,563
<INCOME-TAX>                    205
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,253
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    1,253
<EPS-BASIC>                   .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .10



</TABLE>
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                                    Software
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Monsoon '90headline bar [Missing Title]
               Research
               Investigators
               Monsoon '90 Remote Sensing Images
               Landsat-7 TM Image
               Surface Brightness Temperature Map, 6 m resolution
               Monsoon '90 Bibliography
               Surface Brightness Temperature Map, 90 m resolution
               Sensible Heat Flux
               Land Use for Landsat TM Image


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
Exhibit 10.57


 


Summary
of Compensation Arrangement between Agilent and the Non-Employee Directors


 


Effective
as of March 1, 2010, each of Paul N. Clark, Robert J. Herbold, Robert L.
Joss, Koh Boon Hwee, Heidi Kunz, David M. Lawrence, M.D. and A. Barry Rand, the
non-employee directors of Agilent, receive annually (a) $75,000 in cash
which is paid quarterly; and (b) $150,000 in value of unrestricted shares
of Agilent common stock.  The unrestricted
shares are fully vested upon grant.


 


In
addition, non-employee directors who serve as the chairperson of a Board
committee are entitled to a committee chair premium.  Specifically, the chairperson of each of the
Compensation Committee and the Nominating/Corporate Governance Committee,
provided that such person is not the Non-Executive Chairman, shall, on an
annual basis, receive an additional ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in cash.  The chairperson of the Audit and Finance
Committee of the Board, provided that such person is not the Non-Executive
Chairman, shall, on an annual basis, receive an additional twenty thousand
dollars ($20,000.00) in cash.  The
chairperson of any other Board committee, provided that such person is not the
Non-Executive Chairman, shall, on an annual basis, receive an additional ten
thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in cash.


 


Each
member of the Audit and Finance Committee shall, on an annual basis, receive an
additional ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) in cash which shall be made in a
lump sum payment as soon as practicable following the Initial Payment Date with
respect to the Plan Year.


 


The
Non-Executive Chairman, James G. Cullen, receives an Annual Retainer that
consists of (i) a $260,000 in cash, and (ii) $150,000 in value
of unrestricted shares of Agilent common stock. The Non-Executive Chairman is
not eligible to receive any committee chair premiums. The unrestricted shares
are fully vested upon grant.
#### John Hughes, Respondent, *v.*Abraham A. Andruss et al., Appellants.

(Argued April 21, 1890;

decided May 6, 1890.)

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of New York, entered upon an order made January 16,1889, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff and affirmed an order denying a motion for a new trial.

*Leona/rd Leo*and *John L. N. Hv/rut*for appellants.

*James R. Hiemann*for respondent.

Agree to affirm; no opinion-

All concur, except Eael, J., not voting.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S.J. Res. 43 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. J. RES. 43

 Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 
       Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 12, 2012

Mr. McConnell (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. McCain, Mr. Durbin, and 
Ms. Collins) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 
       Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, and for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO BURMESE FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003.

    Section 9(b)(3) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003 
(Public Law 108-61; 50 U.S.C. 1701 note) is amended by striking ``nine 
years'' and inserting ``twelve years''.

SEC. 2. RENEWAL OF IMPORT RESTRICTIONS UNDER BURMESE FREEDOM AND 
              DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2003.

    (a) In General.--Congress approves the renewal of the import 
restrictions contained in section 3(a)(1) and section 3A (b)(1) and 
(c)(1) of the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.
    (b) Rule of Construction.--This joint resolution shall be deemed to 
be a ``renewal resolution'' for purposes of section 9 of the Burmese 
Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    This joint resolution and the amendment made by this joint 
resolution shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this joint 
resolution or July 26, 2012, whichever occurs first.
                                 <all>
```
f8k120409wx10ii_recovery.htm


    Exhibit 10.2

     

    
      PROMISSORY
NOTE

      


      $2,200,000.00
(U.S.)                                                                                                             Denver,
Colorado

                     December 4,
2009

      


      For value received, the undersigned,
RECOVERY ENERGY INC., a Nevada corporation (“Borrower”), hereby promises to pay
to the order of EDWARD MIKE DAVIS, L.L.C., a Nevada limited liability company
(“Lender”), at 200 Rancho Circle, Las Vegas, Nevada  89107, or at any
other place designated at any time by the holder hereof, by bank wire transfer
to the account of Edward Mike Davis, L.L.C., Account No. 4961570002, at the Bank
of America, P.O. Box 98600, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193, telephone number
866-214-6822, Bank Routing Number 026009593, the principal sum of TWO MILLION
AND TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,200,000.00), together with interest on the
principal amount hereunder from December 18, 2009 until this Note is fully paid
at a rate equal to the prime plus two percent, as established by Bank of America
in Las Vegas, Nevada (computed based on a 360 day year) but in no event greater
than the maximum lawful rate permitted by applicable law (the “Interest
Rate”).

      


      The principal hereof and interest
accruing thereon shall be due and payable in full in the legal currency of the
United States of America on December 18, 2009 (the “Loan Maturity
Date”).  This Note may be prepaid.

      


      This Note
is issued in connection with the acquisition by the Borrower of oil and gas
interests in Colorado and Nebraska on or about the date hereof.  This
Note is subject to and is payable in accordance with the terms of that certain
Purchase and Sale Agreement dated effective December 1, 2009, by and between
Borrower and Lender.

      


      This Note is secured, among other
things, by that certain Mortgage, Deed of Trust, Assignment, Security Agreement,
Fixture Filing and Financing Statement, and may now or hereafter be secured by
one or more other security agreements, pledges, assignments, agreements or other
instruments.

      


      The
Borrower hereby agrees to pay all costs of collection, including attorneys’ fees
and legal expenses, if this Note is not paid when due, whether or not legal
proceedings are commenced.  Presentment or other demand for payment,
notice of dishonor and protest are expressly waived.

      


      RECOVERY ENERGY INC.

      


      


      By:  /s/ Jeffrey A.
Beunier___________________

        Jeffrey A. Beunier,
President
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jerry Ketteles, Also Known as Jerry Kettrles, Appellant.

[941 NYS2d 513]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated May 19, 2009 *(People v Ketteles,*62 AD3d 902 [2009]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 13, 2006.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Mastro, A.P.J., Rivera, Dillon and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tony Dunbar, Appellant.

[942 NYS2d 376]

Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated June 22, 2010 *(People v Dunbar,*74 AD3d 1227 [2010]), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 15, 2007.

Ordered that the application is denied.

The appellant has failed to establish that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel *(see Jones v Barnes,*463 US 745 [1983]; *People v Stultz,*2 NY3d 277 [2004]). Mastro, A.P.J., Florio, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.
# C_2019363EN.01003701.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/37

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — Café Camelo v EUIPO — Camel Brand (CAMEL BRAND FOOD PRODUCTS)

(Case T-244/19) (1)

(2019/C 363/47)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---